• Ingen resultater fundet

Danish University Colleges Conflicting Values in Discourses of Social Responsibility Essays on Consumer-Oriented CSR Communication Schmeltz, Line

N/A
N/A
Info
Hent
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Del "Danish University Colleges Conflicting Values in Discourses of Social Responsibility Essays on Consumer-Oriented CSR Communication Schmeltz, Line"

Copied!
180
0
0

Indlæser.... (se fuldtekst nu)

Hele teksten

(1)

Danish University Colleges

Conflicting Values in Discourses of Social Responsibility Essays on Consumer-Oriented CSR Communication Schmeltz, Line

Publication date:

2012

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication

Citation for pulished version (APA):

Schmeltz, L. (2012). Conflicting Values in Discourses of Social Responsibility: Essays on Consumer-Oriented CSR Communication. Aarhus University, Business and Social Sciences, Department of Business

Communication.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.

• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Download policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Download date: 29. Sep. 2022

(2)

Aalborg Universitet

Conflicting Values in Discourses of Social Responsibility Essays on Consumer-Oriented CSR Communication

Schmeltz, Line

Publication date:

2012

Link to publication from Aalborg University

Citation for published version (APA):

Schmeltz, L. (2012). Conflicting Values in Discourses of Social Responsibility: Essays on Consumer-Oriented CSR Communication. Aarhus University, Business and Social Sciences, Department of Business

Communication.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.

? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain ? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at vbn@aub.aau.dk providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: marts 16, 2021

(3)

Conflicting Values in Discourses of Social Responsibility

Essays on Consumer-Oriented CSR Communication

PhD Thesis Line Schmeltz, 2012

Supervisor:

Poul Erik Flyvholm Jørgensen

Centre for Corporate Communication

Department of Business Communication

Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University

(4)
(5)

Tak

Da jeg for tre år siden startede på instituttet som ph.d.-studerende, var der en god kollega, der gjorde mig opmærksom på, at ’a PhD is never your own’. Og det er fuldstændigt korrekt. Der er således en lang række mennesker, som har været en del af, at denne afhandling blev til - og blev færdig – og til dem skal der lyde en stor tak:

Til Poul Erik for at være en fantastisk loyal, kompetent og flittig vejleder, som utrætteligt har givet mig feedback på mit arbejde, og med hvem jeg har haft rigtigt mange inspirerende, og til tider lettere frustrerende, samtaler. Også tak for alle boblerne, PE, they were much appreciated!

Til mine mange gode kolleger for faglige indspark og for interesse. Til CSR-gruppen for at lukke mig ind i folden som føl, og til Ph.d.-gruppen for gode ideer og ikke mindst godt selskab. En særlig tak til Annette, Jonas, Sinne, Matilde, og Anna Karina for kolossale mængder opbakning,

opmuntring og gode oplevelser, som rækker langt ud over kontorernes vægge.

Til venner og familie for at hente børn, byde på aftensmad, tage til diverse skole- og

børnehavearrangementer, man ikke selv kan nå, og for at synes at det er lidt synd for den travle ph.d.-studerende.

Til sidst skal den største tak lyde til mændene i mit liv: Claus, Alfred, Villads, Anton og Aksel. I husker mig på det, der er vigtigt.

Kærlige hilsner Line

(6)
(7)

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION TO THE DISSERTATION

1. Introduction ... 3

1.1. The Aim of the Dissertation... 5

1.2. Overview of Articles... 6

1.3. Dissertation Structure ... 7

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2. Theoretical Approaches to Communication ... 11

3. Introducing and Defining Corporate Social Responsibility ... 13

3.1. Historical Overview ... 13

3.2. Defining and Modeling CSR ... 14

3.2.1. Practitioner definitions ... 15

3.2.2. Academic definitions ... 15

3.3. Components of CSR ... 18

3.4. Theoretical Approaches to CSR ... 21

3.5. Positioning the Dissertation in the CSR Landscape ... 22

4. Overview of Current CSR Communication Research ... 25

4.1. Defining CSR Communication ... 25

4.2. The Complexity of Communicating CSR ... 26

4.3. Fields of Research within CSR Communication ... 27

4.3.1. Consumer-oriented CSR communication ... 27

4.4. CSR Communication Models and Frameworks ... 28

METHODOLOGY 5. Theoretical Presuppositions ... 35

5.1. Comparing Integrative and Functionalistic Approaches ... 35

5.2. Multiple Paradigms ... 36

5.3. A Social-Constructivist Position ... 37

6. Research Design and Methods... 41

6.1. Defining Mixed Methods ... 41

6.1.1. Strengths and weaknesses of mixed methods research ... 42

6.2. Characteristics of Mixed Methods in this Dissertation ... 44

6.3. Presentation of the Research Design ... 45

6.3.1. Data analysis approaches ... 47

6.3.2. Changes made to the original design ... 48

(8)

THE THREE ARTICLES

7. Introduction to Article 1 ... 51

7.1. Composition of the Questionnaire ... 51

8. Article 1: Consumer-Oriented CSR Communication: Focusing on Ability or Morality? ... 53

9. Bridging Articles 1 & 2 ... 77

9.1. Explicatory Output from Article 1 ... 77

9.2. Generative Input for Article 2 ... 77

9.3. The Danish Industries Project ... 77

9.3.1. Case selection ...78

9.3.2. Coding and analysis ... 78

10. Article 2: Identical or Just Compatible? The Utility of Corporate Values in Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility ... 81

11. Bridging Articles 2 & 3 ... 105

11.1. Explicatory Output from Article 2 ... 105

11.2. Generative Input for Article 3 ... 105

11.3. Choice of Method ... 105

11.3.1. An experimental design ... 105

11.3.2. Elaboration of the four framed texts ... 106

12. Article 3: Introducing Value-Based Framing as a Strategy for Communicating CSR ... 109

CONCLUDING THE PROJECT 13. Synthesizing the Contributions ... 139

13.1. Discrepancy ... 140

13.1.1. Scale ... 140

13.1.2. Media ... 140

13.1.3. Content ... 141

13.2. Competing Frames of CSR ... 142

13.3. CSR Fits ... 143

13.4. Changing Roles in Society ... 145

13.5. Conclusion ... 145

SUMMARIES 14. English Summary ... 149

15. Dansk Sammendrag ... 151

(9)

LISTS OF TABLES & FIGURES

16. List of Tables ... 155 17. List of Figures ... 155

APPENDICES

18. List of Appendices ... 159 BIBLIOGRAPHY

19. References ... 163

(10)
(11)

1

INTRODUCTION TO THE DISSERTATION

(12)

2

(13)

3

1. Introduction

When Gro Harlem Brundtland presented the UN report Our Common Future in 1987, it marked the beginning of a new era for corporate social responsibility (CSR). For companies to voluntarily take upon them a social responsibility was not a new phenomenon but had been practised for decades in other forms and formats. Some argue that the idea of CSR, as we now know it, emerged in the 1930s following the publication of The modern corporation and private property by Harvard professors Berle and Means (Beckmann, 2007). However, Bowen (1953) is usually credited for coining the term and its modern understanding in his seminal book Social Responsibility of the Businessman.

The Brundtland initiative, developed by an independent body, the World Commission on Environment and Development, was the driving force behind putting CSR on the political agenda. It was the first concerted international effort to try to explicitly reconcile economic growth, environmental protection, and social equality instead of seeing growth and sustainability as poles apart. To this end, the report pronounced that “the time has come for a marriage of economy and ecology”.

The commission was set up in 1983 under the auspices of the United Nations and given the task of formulating a global program for change with a view to ensuring sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond. The report put forward a number of action proposals in relation to the environment, technology, economy, and population growth. It underlined that the measures taken should not only address critical global problems but also strengthen a common understanding and sense of responsibility. At the time, an urgent need was felt for both populations and corporations to become involved in questions about environment and development.

The Brundtland Report famously defined sustainability as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. By furthermore stating that “the shift to sustainable development must be powered by a continuing flow of wealth from industry”, the role of the corporate world in securing global sustainability was firmly established. Hence, the report sparked intense discussions about how to define the role of business in society (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1998).

In the wake of the Brundtland Report, a number of summits were held, e.g. the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and international agreements were reached, e.g. the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, all of which have had profound impact on both business and society and continued to do so. In June 2012, the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit was celebrated by the Rio+20 Conference on Sustainability.

The political initiatives spurred the business world to step up to the challenge and form global associations such as The World Business Council on Sustainable Development. Initiatives to support a sustainable business environment were also created, e.g. the UN’s Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative, an initiative rooted in the US non-profit organization the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies. The corporate world has also been subjected to pressure from the European Union which has implemented several policies on CSR and recently announced

(14)

4 that proposals for further legislative measures on the disclosure of social and environmental information are in the pipeline (European Commission, 2011).

The Brundtland Report has had major corporate implications as companies today need to explicate their position on CSR to a much higher degree than earlier. Thus, a new corporate role has emerged concurrently with sustainability and social responsibility climbing towards the top of the political agenda. What makes CSR attractive to governments, policymakers, and businesspeople alike is its perceived capacity to reconcile economic, environmental, and social challenges in society. So, further investigation of how these challenges affect the relationship between companies and stakeholders is needed. One of the challenges is how this relationship depends on how corporations articulate their engagement in CSR. In reflecting on the role of CSR communication in this new societal context, Ihlen et al. (2011a, p. 566) state that:

CSR forms an integral part of contemporary organizational and social life even if its practice is still evolving. For that very reason, communication around CSR has an essential role in the evolution of not just what organizations do, but also in the role that the rest of society – whether as stakeholders, NGOs, media or insiders to the organization – play in articulating the meaning and practice of CSR.

Communication is thus essential as it supports and facilitates the relationship between companies and their stakeholders. Communication of CSR may create legitimacy for the company, build strong relationships with customers, increase competitive power, strengthen corporate reputation, attract and retain employees, and eventually generate profits. Communication of CSR, however, causes some concern and uncertainty among companies because they are not accustomed to addressing these topics. Moreover, they may feel obliged to establish relationships with stakeholder groups that they have not traditionally engaged with.

This dissertation focuses on the stakeholder group broadly referred to as consumers, and how it engages with companies’ CSR communication. Consumers perform a pivotal role in the setting created by the Brundtland Report, and they are continuously becoming more influential in their relationships with companies. Ellis (2010, p. xx) describes the new landscape of changed roles as paradoxical in that:

… consumers are both price conscious and ethically aware; employees search for both material wealth and spiritual growth; public institutions deliver welfare solutions and are run like businesses; non-profit organizations use market methods to create social value, and companies are socially responsible while making a profit.

This dissertation is specifically concerned with young consumers (18-30 years). This group, sometimes referred to as Generation Y, The iGens, Generation Me, or the Millennials (Twenge, 2006), is particularly interesting for a number of reasons. It is the first generation to have grown up with the Internet, so it has different media habits and is much more familiar with communications, media and digital technology than any earlier generation (Eurostat, 2009; Kongsholm, 2010;

Twenge, 2006). Furthermore, its spending power is considerable (Buksa & Mitsis, 2011; Henrie &

Taylor, 2009), and it is predicted to be the most influential and dominant group of consumers in the near future (Kongsholm, 2010; Lazarevic, 2012). It is supposedly materialistic, and its “forms of

(15)

5 consumption are central to [its] sense of identity and the acquisition of status or “cool” through this consumption” (Ferguson, 2011).

We may reasonably assume that the changed roles of both corporations and consumers in society will influence and lead to a change in the communication flowing between them. As the traditional relationship between company and consumer is changed, so communication will change.

Consequently, this dissertation seeks to explore the phenomenon of consumer-oriented CSR communication from three different perspectives: the consumer perspective, the corporate perspective and the communication perspective.

1.1. The Aim of the Dissertation

The aim of the dissertation is to explore the configurations of the conception, production and perception of CSR communication with a view to gaining a thicker, more balanced, description of the reported difficulties of communicating CSR (IE School of Communication & Global Alliance, 2010; Morsing, 2005; Waddock & Googins, 2011). The dissertation enquires

whether companies’ CSR aspirations and commitments primarily support internal and institutional objectives, or whether they reflect and respond to consumers’ expectations of corporate responsible behavior in their corporate communication in a way that supports a bridging of understandings between companies and consumers?

In order to address this question, the dissertation is built up to contain three individual, yet interdependent, studies focusing on consumers, companies and communication, respectively.

Through these three studies, the dissertation seeks to answer the following three research questions related to the complexities of communicating CSR in the context of young consumers:

Article 1, focusing on the consumer component, poses the question:

RQ1: What are young people’s attitudes and expectations towards corporate engagement in and communication about CSR?

Article 2, focusing on the corporate component, poses the question:

RQ2: Do companies embracing a CSR agenda adapt and align their value systems and values communication to reflect a new commitment and an underlying change in corporate identity?

Article 3, focusing on the communication component, poses the question:

RQ3: How can framing of a CSR message be positively related to the perception of the message?

The article format chosen for this dissertation, instead of the traditional monograph, offers several advantages: It allows the dissertation to address the problem from different perspectives in separate, but related, studies, and to generate and utilize different data sets. The aim has been to create a connecting, logical thread across the three different studies. An overview of the three articles is given in Section 1.2. to explain how the research is designed.

(16)

6

1.2. Overview of Articles

The three articles constituting the bulk of the dissertation are summarized in Figure 1-1 below. The figure shows the objectives, methods and conclusions of the articles:

Figure 1-1: Overview of the three articles

Articles Summary Perspective: Consumers

Article 1: Consumer-oriented CSR Communication: Focusing on Ability or Morality?

Objective Method Conclusions

To investigate young people’s opinions and attitudes towards companies’ engagement and communication about CSR.

Quantitative.

An online survey using eight critical dimensions of CSR communication.

Respondents were Danish students (18-30 years) from 8 different types of further or higher education.

Corporations have a greater chance of meeting young consumers’ demands and expectations if they embrace the concept of CSR more explicitly through competence values and self- centered values. The data suggest that consumers distance themselves from the moral approach.

Perspective: Companies

Article 2: Identical or Just Compatible? The Utility of Corporate Identity Values in Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility

Objective Method Conclusions

To explore whether companies embracing a CSR agenda have a strategic focus on adapting and aligning their value systems in reflection of such a commitment.

Qualitative.

Semi-structured interviews with six (B2C) first mover companies who are all members of The Confederation of Danish Industries’ CSR network.

Interviews were compared against the companies’ website texts on mission, vision, and values.

The companies in the data sample operate with two markedly different value systems: a moral value system in relation to CSR and a competence value system in relation to corporate identity. The data suggest that a tighter fit between a company’s CI values and CSR values would lessen the complexity of communicating about CSR issues.

Perspective: Communication

Article 3: Introducing Value-Based Framing as a Strategy for Communicating CSR

Objective Method Conclusions

To test how framing through a value- theoretical framework of CSR messages impacts the perception of the CSR message with a view to suggesting a new CSR

communication strategy framework.

Quantitative.

Online survey strongly inspired by classical experimental design.

Respondents randomly selected and representative of Danish young people (18-30) were asked to evaluate four manipulated CSR texts.

Explicit communication of CSR framed as a corporate competence, and, to some extent, also as

something personally relevant to the receivers, positively impacts

evaluations of CSR messages and the companies behind and inhibits skepticism. The data suggest that corporate communication of CSR messages take a turn from framing CSR as a moral concept to a competence concept.

(17)

7

1.3. Dissertation Structure

The dissertation delineates the theoretical background on the basis of which this research project is elaborated. Chapter 2 thus briefly introduces the dissertations’ theoretical approach to communication. Chapter 3 introduces the concept of CSR, its historical background and its different theoretical definitions and conceptualizations. Chapter 4 concludes the theoretical section with an overview of the field of CSR communication research and establishes the position of the current work.

Chapters 5 and 6 explain the methodological underpinnings of the project: Chapter 5 outlines the theoretical standpoint of the project, and Chapter 6 discusses the research design and methods applied. Because the dissertation is a compilation of articles, the different methods will not be discussed in detail in Chapter 6 but will be accounted for in the individual articles. Instead, the focus in this chapter will be on how the research design was developed, altered and adapted during the process, and how the final research design was determined.

Chapters 7-12 introduce and present the dissertation’s three articles. The first article is preceded by an elaboration of its particular research design and its reflections in relation to method in Chapter 7.

To connect the articles, each of them is followed by a short chapter explaining how the output generates input to the next article. These two bridging chapters also explain the research design of the following article.

Chapter 13 discusses the accumulated contributions of the three articles. Here, the findings are synthesized, and the overall contribution of the dissertation is explained. This chapter concludes the dissertation.

(18)

8

(19)

9

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

(20)

10

(21)

11

2. Theoretical Approaches to Communication

The understanding of what communication is differs across research traditions and fields but roughly divides into two overall research paradigms or approaches (Heath & Bryant, 2008): the transmission paradigm associated with the well-known models developed by scholars like e.g.

Laswell (1948) and Shannon & Weaver (1949), and the interaction paradigm advocated by e.g.

Schramm (1954). The former focuses on the linear distribution of information or transmission of messages from sender to receiver, whereas the latter sees communication to be more than just a question of transmitting messages from A to B. Here, communication is rather a form of interaction through which co-construction and creation of meanings, messages, relationships, identity and social reality take place (Frandsen, 2009b; Heath & Bryant, 2008). The characteristics of the transmission and the interaction paradigms are summarized below:

Table 2-1: Communication paradigm characteristics based on: Frandsen (2009a); Griffin (2006); Heath &

Bryant (2008); Ohlsson (2009) and Helder (2009)

Transmission Interaction

View on communication Communication is transmission of messages from sender to receiver

Focus on the process, not on how sender and (the passive) receiver create meaning of messages

Distribution of messages

Communication is creation of meaning through social interaction between people

Focus on how we co-construct our social world through communication with one another

Interpretation of messages

Aim To create desired effect, obtain specific

goals

To create, change, exchange and negotiate meaning, relationships, identities

Process Linear Circular/dynamic

Control of communication Sender Sender and receiver (if any)

Even though the transmission paradigm describes communication as rigid and inflexible, and is often referred to in current literature as old-fashioned, it is important to note that transmission as a way to communicate is still dominant in practice. It is in the understanding of communication as a concept that the interaction view tends to dominate today.

Due to the aim of exploring CSR communication as a shared value system between companies and consumers, the dissertation primarily subscribes to the interaction paradigm with its focus on co- creation of meanings, relationships, and identities:

(22)

12 Figure 2-1: Theoretical approach to communication

From this perspective, communication plays a more significant role as a mediating and co-creating resource rather than just a tool for delivering a message from sender to receiver. This approach to communication is also evident in the tripartite composition of the dissertation in the form of three articles focusing on consumers, companies, and communication, respectively. With a transmission approach to communication, it would not have been necessary to include consumers as they would be passive recipients of communication controlled by corporations. Instead, consumers (receivers) are here recognized as co-constructors of meaning as they engage with companies through CSR communication.

Transmission Paradigm Carrying messages

Interaction Paradigm Interpreting messages

(23)

13

3. Introducing and Defining Corporate Social Responsibility

This chapter provides a short overview of the history of CSR, which serves as a background for discussing and defining the modern understanding of CSR. This is followed by an introduction to the individual components of CSR before the chapter concludes by positioning the dissertation within the field of CSR.

3.1. Historical Overview

As a field of practice, CSR is relatively young and only really emerged in the 1950s with Bowen’s (1953) book Social Responsibilities of the Businessman which raised the question of what businessmen can reasonably be expected to assume responsibility for (Beckmann, Morsing, &

Reisch, 2006; Carroll, 1999; Crane, Matten, & Spence, 2008). Until this time, activities related to CSR were mainly of a philanthropic character (Frederick, 2006; Moura-Leite & Padgett, 2011).

In the 1960s, the literature of CSR grew rapidly as academic research in the field moved forward.

Several attempts were made to define CSR (Beckmann, et al., 2006; Carroll, 1999), and to determine impact on both society and business (Moura-Leite & Padgett, 2011). The decade was characterized by significant social changes in civil rights, women’s rights, consumers’ rights, and environmental rights, resulting in a completely different context for companies to navigate in (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). There was, however, still no perceived link between assuming corporate responsibility and financial performance (Carroll & Shabana, 2010).

The concept of corporate citizenship was introduced in the 1970s, and the idea of stakeholder management slowly started to take root as well (Beckmann, et al., 2006). Criticism of, and skepticism towards, CSR began to appear, most notably spurred by Milton Friedman’s critical essay The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits (1970), and it was heavily debated whether “the business of business is business”, or if companies also carry social responsibilities (Carroll, 1999). This decade also saw the perhaps most cited definition of CSR, proposed by Carroll (1979, p. 500), stating that “the social responsibility of business encompasses the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary expectations that society has of organizations at a given point in time”.

The definition is central to CSR research and has had considerable impact on both research and practice.

In the 1980s, the theoretical approach to CSR was supplemented by a wave of empirical research (Beckmann, et al., 2006; Carroll, 1999), and new alternative variants or themes related to CSR, e.g.

business ethics (Carroll & Shabana, 2010) were introduced. Instead of trying to determine the contents of CSR, some scholars began to perceive CSR as a process rather than outcome (Carroll, 1999). A process-oriented view of CSR entailed greater sensitivity towards stakeholders. This is in line with the ideas of stakeholder theory and stakeholder management, the most widely-cited example being Freeman’s (1984) contribution, Strategic Management, A Stakeholder Approach.

Accordingly, stakeholder theory gained foothold, and companies started being more responsive to stakeholders (Moura-Leite & Padgett, 2011). The linkage between CSR and stakeholder theory was

(24)

14 firmly established by Wood (1991), who claimed that the purpose of the company had shifted from a shareholder view to a social view.

In the 1990s, Carroll introduced his influential pyramid of CSR (1991) which builds on his 1979 definition. The pyramid remains one of the widely used models of CSR in both research and practice. A central theme of this decade was the business case for CSR, not only in academic research but also in the business community which was “seeking to rationalize and legitimize the activities it had begun and were continuing” (Carroll & Shabana, 2010, p. 88). As society became increasingly globalized in the late 1990s, CSR was more widely discussed than before (Ihlen, Bartlett, & May, 2011c), and as the new millennium drew nearer, the rationales behind CSR had become widely accepted (Lee, 2008). CSR was now actively promoted through government and institutional guidelines and initiatives, such as the UN Global Compact.

In the early 2000s, the notion of sustainability became very popular and part of any discussion of CSR (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). A turn towards CSR as a central component of strategic management thinking, and a strategic resource, was also observed (Lee, 2008). It is thus argued that, in the new millennium, the focal point of CSR theories and research moved from an ethics orientation to a performance orientation, witnessed by the significant amount of research and support of the business case for CSR. There is a growing interest in promoting the so-called responsibility-profitability connection suggesting that CSR has become institutionalized as a core function of doing business (Carroll & Shabana, 2010; Lee, 2008; Vogel, 2006).

Some scholars see the development of CSR as a series of waves or generations (Stohl, Stohl, &

Townsley, 2007) where the first generation was concerned with what not to do, the second with providing adequate compensation and working conditions, and the third and current generation with addressing proactive and positive responsibilities. The last generation is also characterized by the fusing of public and private life (Stohl, et al., 2007) which has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between. Many affairs that were before considered private are now considered public.

One reason for this shift is the advent of new communication technologies facilitating human interaction and intervention in contexts that were earlier considered to be purely corporate and not directly influenced by private individuals with an interest in a given business or industry. Today, it is possible for consumers, interest groups and professional and industrial bodies to confront even large corporations on their actions and ways of doing business. This may impact significantly on how CSR develops and unfolds.

3.2. Defining and Modeling CSR

There is no generally accepted definition of CSR (Ihlen et al., 2011c; Okoye, 2009), nor is there one dominant paradigm of CSR (Ihlen et al., 2011c). This is partly because CSR is a very dynamic concept which has evolved considerably over the years to the effect that definitions of the concept are both historically and socially conditioned (Ihlen, May, & Bartlett, 2011). What was considered to be CSR 20 years ago, may today be considered a basic condition of running a business (Arvidsson, 2010).

(25)

15 In this changing environment, researchers keep seeking for a consensus on the definition of CSR as

“[t]he lack of consistency in the use of the term CSR makes it difficult to compare results across studies, hampering our ability to understand the implications of CSR activity” (McWilliams, Siegel,

& Wright, 2006, p. 8).

The term Corporate Social Responsibility is part and parcel of both corporate and academic discourse, and the definitions of CSR can be divided into academic definitions for academics and

“practitioner” definitions for corporate audiences. As a definition is central to this research project, emphasis is naturally on the academic definitions, but the definitions prevailing in the corporate world will be briefly referred to as well as these are representative of corporate or institutional frames of CSR.

3.2.1. Practitioner definitions

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 1998, p. 3) defines CSR as

“the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the community and society at large". In their view, CSR is not voluntary but takes the form of an obligation.

The European Commission’s 2001 definition is often used in both corporate and academic settings, and it defines CSR as “a concept whereby companies integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis”

(European Commission, 2001, p. 6). In 2011, this was further refined, and the Commission now understands CSR as “the responsibilities of enterprises for their impacts on society” (European Commission, 2011, p. 6). At first, it seems like a very simple and easily applicable definition. In practice, however, the question is how viable the definition is as it requires further explanation and elaboration to be fully understood.

3.2.2. Academic definitions

In the academic world, an important, contemporary definition of corporate social responsibility is captured by the CSR pyramid put forward by Carroll (1991). The pyramid is based on Carroll’s (1979) conceptualization of CSR (see section 3.1.):

(26)

16 Figure 3-1: Carroll’s pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility (1991)

Carroll (1991) depicts a set progression of responsibilities where profit comes before and serves as a basis for legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities. Roughly 20 years after its introduction, this hierarchy of business responsibilities hardly fits today’s business environment: Economic and legal responsibilities are basic components of running any business, and to some extent the same is the case for ethical responsibilities. Carroll argued that the bottom layer of the pyramid was critical to all other responsibilities “because without it the others become moot considerations”(Carroll, 1991, p. 41). Today, the reverse could be argued. If a company does not recognize its legal and ethical responsibilities, chances are that it will not be able to survive in the market.

Schwartz & Carroll (2003) have reexamined the pyramid model with a view to augmenting and improving this contested conceptualization. They proposed a three-domain model of CSR in the form of a Venn diagram in which none of the three domains is more significant than the others:

Philanthropic responsibilities Be a good corporate

citizen Ethical responsibilities Be ethical - avoid harm

Legal responsibilities Obey the law

Economic responsibilities Be profitable

(27)

17 Figure 3-2: The three-domain model of CSR (Schwartz & Carroll, 2003)

This new conceptualization of CSR consisting of an ethical, a legal, and an economic domain results in a model which yields seven CSR categories. It provides a more refined picture of a very complex phenomenon than does the pyramid. Arguably, the most attractive position for a company would be in the middle category (Economic/Legal/Ethical) where the three domains merge in some degree of harmony.

Even though Carroll’s (1991) and Schwartz & Carroll’ s (2003) definitions and conceptualizations of CSR remain influential, other definitions are in abundance in the academic literature. In the following, three categories of definitions are presented.

One group of definitions of CSR is very close to the ideas presented in stakeholder theory and management. This concept is understood as a “redefinition of all organizations: how they should be conceptualized and what they should be. The organization itself should be thought of as a grouping of stakeholders and the purpose of the organization should be to manage their interests, needs and viewpoints” (Friedman & Miles, 2006, p. 1). A central example of CSR definitions in this group is offered by Werther & Chandler (2006, p. 6), who argue that:

CSR covers the relationship between corporations (or other large organizations) and the societies with which they interact. CSR also includes the responsibilities that are inherent on both sides of these relationships. CSR defines society in its widest sense, and on many levels, to include all stakeholder and constituent groups that maintain an ongoing interest in the organization’s operations.

(28)

18 In this definition, CSR is very much in line with the concept of stakeholder management, albeit with a particular focus on sustainable and responsible business practices and behavior. Another example in this group is the definition by Beckman et al. (2006, p. 18), who state that “CSR can be viewed as the corporate implementation of the concepts of sustainable development and stakeholder management”.

Other definitions focus on the voluntary aspect of CSR. In the early years of CSR, voluntariness was a very predominant element in definitions, and it still plays a role in some current definitions e.g. the one by McWilliams, Siegel & Wright (2006, p. 1), who define CSR as “situations where the firm goes beyond compliance and engages in ‘actions that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law”. The many definitions focusing on the voluntary element are challenged by increasing regulatory requirements applying to CSR. In some countries, it is mandatory for corporations to explain their position and the degree of their involvement in CSR. In Denmark, for example, the 1,100 largest companies are now required by law to report on their CSR activities and efforts in their annual reports (CSRgov.dk, 2010).

Finally, a cohort of current CSR definitions accentuate a co-constructive approach in which all stakeholders are attributed a role in any type of CSR engagement. An example of this category is from the first handbook of CSR communication (Ihlen et al., 2011c, p. 8) which defines CSR as:

the corporate attempt to negotiate its relationship to stakeholders and the public at large. It might include the process of mapping and evaluating demands from stakeholders, and the development and implementation of actions or policies to meet (or ignore) these demands. At a minimum, CSR focuses on the way corporations handle economic, social and/or environmental issues.

By using the wording ´negotiate its relationships´, this definition acknowledges that stakeholders and the public are instrumental in developing a corporate social engagement.

3.3. Components of CSR

Research in the field of CSR has defined CSR by way of its dimensions (Dahlsrud, 2008), its overlapping concepts (Matten & Moon, 2004, 2008), and its characteristics (Crane, et al., 2008).

Moreover, the drivers for corporations to embrace CSR have been mapped (Paine, 2003; Porter &

Kramer, 2006).

On the basis of existing CSR definitions, Dahlsrud (2008) developed five dimensions of CSR which are characteristic of currently accepted definitions, namely 1) stakeholder, 2) social, 3) economic, 4) voluntariness, and 5) environmental. He argues that even though the number of CSR definitions is substantial, the definitions are fundamentally congruent. Thus the search for one universally accepted definition is not as exigent as assumed. The main challenge lies, however, in understanding that “CSR is socially constructed in a specific context and how to take this into account when business strategies are developed” (Dahlsrud, 2008, p. 6).

Crane, Matten & Spence (2008) identify six core characteristics of CSR: 1) voluntary, 2) internalizing or managing externalities, 3) multiple stakeholder orientation, 4) alignment of social

(29)

19 and economic responsibilities, 5) practices and values, and 6) beyond philanthropy. As in the work of Dahlsrud (2008), Crane, Matten & Spence (2008) identify core characteristics that are included in existing understandings of CSR. They underline that a definition can include more than one characteristic, but that definitions including all six core characteristics are rarely, if ever, seen. This implies that CSR is shaped in many different configurations, but that these configurations have a limited number of building blocks. In line with this, Matten & Moon (2004, 2008) see CSR as composed by overlapping concepts. They argue that CSR is an umbrella term or concept which is dynamic and contextually bound, covering and overlapping with business ethics, business-society relations, environmental responsibility, and corporate philanthropy. Again, the contextuality of CSR is underlined.

The work on classifying and mapping drivers for CSR focuses on corporate, not societal, reasons for embracing CSR. An often cited understanding of corporate adaptation of CSR is by Paine (2003) who identifies four major clusters of drivers plus one additional factor:

Figure 3-3: Paine’s five drivers of CSR (2003)

In Figure 3-3, the drivers are illustrated as separate entities. A company’s decision to engage in CSR is, however, often motivated by more than one rationale for doing so, e.g. as a way to both eliminate potential risks and enhance market positioning by creating a stronger brand.

Paine’s (2003) mapping of corporate drivers for CSR is very much in accordance with Porter &

Kramer’s (2006) mapping which contains “four prevailing justifications for CSR”. The four justifications, or drivers, are: 1) moral obligation, 2) sustainability, 3) license to operate, and 4) reputation. The two mappings by Porter & Kramer (2006) and Paine (2003), respectively, recognize

(30)

20 civic positioning/license to operate and market positioning/reputation as drivers of CSR. They also differ in that only Porter & Kramer see sustainability as a driver, and in that risk management is not included. Moreover, where Paine sees the moral argument for CSR as an additional factor for a corporate engagement, Porter & Kramer see it as a corporate driver on a par with the other drivers.

A final example of the drivers approach to CSR is Claydon’s (2011) model of consumer-driven corporate responsibility which, she argues, is

both descriptive in that it reflects the current successful socially and environmentally responsible practices demonstrated by corporations and normative in that it provides a guideline for how corporations can adopt socially and environmentally responsible behavior into their business strategy and everyday practices:

Figure 3-4: Claydon’s model of consumer-driven corporate responsibility (2011)

The model illustrates that consumers are key components in the conceptualization of CSR in that they are attributed the role as the primary driver of CSR. Claydon (2011) maintains that consumers are the most effective drivers for CSR implementation: As consumer demand for CSR continuously rises, this demand must be met by corporations. In this perspective, consumers are thus the central point around which CSR implementation is centered as they both drive and reinforce the implementation.

The discussion of drivers of CSR is closely related to the debate for and against CSR. A short outline of arguments for and against CSR is shown in Table 3-1:

(31)

21 Table 3-1: Overview of pros and cons of CSR. Adapted from Carroll & Shabana (2010)

Arguments against CSR Arguments for CSR

The business of business is business It is in business’s long-term self-interest to be socially responsible

Business is not equipped to handle social activities Business has the resources – let it try CSR dilutes businesses’ primary purpose Pro-acting is better than reacting Business has enough power as it is – no reason to give it

social power as well

Business should engage in CSR because the public supports it

Pursuing CSR will make the company less competitive globally

CSR will ward off government regulation

The value of responsible engagement driven by self-serving interests (as e.g. reputation and risk management can be perceived to be) is often questioned. The suspicion that corporations become involved for reasons other than merely giving back to society may have a negative impact on stakeholder perceptions. Moreover, corporate ability to deal with highly complex social issues is also debated as it falls outside the realm of what corporations specialize in. In addition, the position that the business of business is to generate profits still prevails and continues to inform the debate for and against CSR.

3.4. Theoretical Approaches to CSR

Due to cross-disciplinary applications and research, it is very difficult to determine what the theoretical approaches to CSR are, and how they can be distinguished from other theories. Garriga

& Melé (2004) have, however, made an overview of CSR theories by mapping them into four categories or groups:

Figure 3-5: Categories of CSR theories. Adapted from Garriga & Melé (2004)

Category Description

1) Instrumental theories CSR is only acceptable when it serves as a means to generate profit

2) Political theories CSR means that the company has social duties, rights, and power which results in responsibilities in the political arena

3) Integrative theories CSR means that businesses ought to integrate social demands (also due to self- benefit)

4) Ethical theories CSR is an ethical concept or obligation that businesses must accept

(32)

22 The categorization is reminiscent of Carroll’s (1991) four levels in the pyramid: the instrumental theories can be viewed as the basic, bottom level. Political developments led to the political theories which are then followed by a more proactive wave in the integrative theories. As in Carroll’s pyramid, the last category is the ethical category or layer.

The first group of CSR theories deals with the business case for CSR, and it is the group of studies which often clashes with studies done by researchers working with political (group 2) and ethical (group 3) theories. The third group of CSR theories, the integrative theories, can however, facilitate a shared understanding between the three other groups. It accepts CSR as an ethical obligation resulting in societal demands, but these demands can be met in a manner which benefits both society and corporations.

3.5. Positioning the Dissertation in the CSR Landscape

This dissertation understands CSR as a dynamic, fluent concept which is highly contextually bound.

It captures the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders, between business and society, by focusing on the ways in which companies handle and respond to economic, social, and environmental issues. Contextual factors that influence the individual modeling of CSR are of a cultural, regional, historical, societal, and political nature in that “what is considered to be proper corporate conduct is a social construction that varies according to culture and time” (Ihlen, 2008, p.

142). Furthermore, line of business, market conditions, and type of product also impact the understanding of CSR. This dissertation thus departs from the traditional way of seeing CSR from a normative perspective, as it may result in limiting and inadequate definitions. Instead, it approaches CSR as a co-construction between organizations and their stakeholders in a particular context.

It is beyond the scope of the project to discuss whether corporate drivers for CSR take a purely moral character or not. Consequently, no judgment will be made in relation to companies embracing the concept purely for self-gain. Drivers are, however, still very relevant for this dissertation because the driving forces behind adopting the concept of CSR will have implications for how companies embark on the task of communicating CSR. A company driven by organizational functioning will arguably have a strong focus on internal communication, whereas a company driven by market positioning will have an external focus.

Although the dissertation focuses on the stakeholder group consisting of consumers, Claydon’s (2011) position that consumers are in all cases the main drivers for CSR is not supported here.

Contexts in which this would not be the case are not difficult to imagine and, in this light, the consumer-driven model of CSR is not accepted as universal in the way presented by Claydon. But for the particular context and background shaping this research project, the model aptly illustrates consumer-company-CSR dynamics, and it underlines the importance of consumers as a stakeholder group in relation to CSR.

As this chapter demonstrates, much discussion on CSR centers around the popular perception that CSR is an oxymoron with an almost sinister purpose. This dissertation will, however, not discuss whether CSR as a phenomenon has a positive or negative impact on business and society, or what

(33)

23 the moral implications are for companies assuming responsibility and communicating about it in a commercially-oriented manner. It solely deals with investigating how CSR is communicated, and thus co-constructed, between companies and consumers, not its moral implications or restrictions.

The discussion for and against CSR is thus only relevant to include here in so far as it plays an important part of the context in which CSR is conceived, enacted, and communicated.

Within Garriga & Melé’s (2004) categorization of CSR theories, this project is positioned in the third category, the integrative approach, where the aim is to investigate how business integrates social demands, in this case the demands of the stakeholder group consisting of young consumers. It is at the same time acknowledged, but not critically discussed, that businesses also integrate social demands as a way to ensure a future market for themselves. As explained by Garriga & Melé (2004, p. 58), “the theories of this group are focused on the detection and scanning of, and response to, the social demands that achieve social legitimacy, greater social acceptance and prestige”. One such way of responding to social demands and achieving legitimacy is by way of communication. The different models and frameworks for communicating CSR will be discussed in Chapter 4.

(34)

24

(35)

25

4. Overview of Current CSR Communication Research

CSR comes to life through both action and communication: If a company does not communicate about CSR, its corporate engagement is likely to go unnoticed by its external stakeholders. Hence, it is a logical consequence of a corporate strategic engagement in CSR that a company engages in external communication about its involvement.

4.1. Defining CSR Communication

Only few attempts have been made to define CSR communication. The depiction of CSR as a dynamic concept, which is both historically and socially contingent, has so far impeded the development of a commonly agreed definition. Without consensus on what CSR is, CSR communication is not easily defined either. Furthermore, research on CSR communication is sparse, and the potential and importance of CSR communication is not yet fully recognized (Ihlen, Bartlett,

& May, 2011b).

A small number of CSR communication definitions, or understandings, do, however, exist. Morsing

& Schultz (2006a, p. 171) offer the following very simple and straightforward definition of CSR communication:

Communication that is designed and distributed by the company itself about its CSR efforts.

Morsing & Schultz’ definition clearly belongs to the transmission perspective on communication. It presents CSR communication as a very simple task which is alone controlled by the corporate sender. The aim of communicating CSR is not very clear here either. According to this definition, CSR communication is mainly a question of informing, or transmitting information.

Podnar (2008, p. 75) suggests a more elaborate definition of CSR communication where CSR communication is:

… a process of anticipating stakeholders’ expectations, articulation of CSR policy and managing of different organization communication tools designed to provide true and transparent information about a company’s or a brand’s integration of its business operations, social and environmental concerns, and interactions with stakeholders.

In this definition, CSR communication is seen as a process, not a transmission. Stakeholders are clearly taken into account, the purpose of the activity of CSR communication is described, and the definition furthermore includes an account of what CSR is.

Finally, Ihlen, Bartlett & May (2011c, p. 8) offer a very comprehensive definition of CSR communication which also accounts for Podnar’s (2008) inclusion of CSR as a process:

Our take is that CSR as an activity is the corporate attempt to negotiate its relationship to stakeholders and the public at large. It might include the process of mapping and evaluating demands from stakeholders, and the development and implementation of actions and policies to meet (or ignore) these demands. At a minimum, CSR focuses on the ways corporations handle economic, social and/or environmental issues. We

(36)

26 will understand CSR communication as the ways that corporations communicate in and about this process;

it is the corporate use of symbols and language regarding these matters.

This definition opens up for a much more inclusion-based, interactive understanding of CSR communication. Stakeholders are not seen as passive spectators. They are, to a certain degree, involved in the process as their demands are taken into consideration, and it could be argued that they may even be attributed an active role in the process as the definition carries an element of co- creation as well (by using the wording “negotiate its relationship”). As is the case with the definition by Morsing & Schultz, the aim or purpose of communicating CSR is not included in the definition.

This dissertation supports Podnar’s (2008) ambition to create true and transparent information and Ihlen et al.’s (2011) inclusion-based approach to CSR and CSR communication. This combination captures both the moral, societal aspirations as well as the potential corporate benefits of communicating CSR.

4.2. The Complexity of Communicating CSR

CSR communication is habitually equated with difficulty and complexity in the literature (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010; Morsing, 2005; Morsing & Beckmann, 2006; Morsing, Schultz, &

Nielsen, 2008; Waddock & Googins, 2011). It is not necessarily rational or logical that corporations experience CSR as difficult to handle as their engagement is by definition beneficial to society and non-controversial. Somehow, the status of corporations in society complicates what appears to be a straightforward task of telling a good story. Some claim that the problem is self-created in that stakeholders have often experienced, and been disappointed by, misalignments between corporate talk on CSR and its practice, also referred to as greenwashing (Bartlett, 2011; Brønn, 2011; Ihlen et al., 2011; May, Cheney, & Roper, 2007; Waddock & Googins, 2011). Greenwashing leads to stakeholder skepticism and damages corporate credibility (Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009). Many stakeholders supposedly find it inappropriate when corporations communicate about their own good deeds as it is seen as insincere self-promotion serving profit-seeking goals. At the same time, however, stakeholders expect companies to engage in CSR, and they would like more CSR information than what they are currently offered by corporate players (Beckmann et al., 2006;

Dawkins, 2004; Podnar, 2008). This paradox is referred to in the literature as the self-promoter’s paradox or the “Catch 22” of communicating CSR (Arvidsson, 2010; Morsing, et al., 2008) and is more prevalent in some parts of the world than in others. The practice of communicating CSR is thus also culturally and nationally contingent (Birth, Illia, Lurati, & Zamparini, 2008; IE School of Communication & Global Alliance, 2010; Maignan & Ralston, 2002; Matten & Moon, 2008). As a consequence of the self-promoter’s paradox, areas of research dealing with skepticism and credibility have grown, see Section 4.3.1. Quite often, however, skepticism and credibility are treated in isolation from one another.

(37)

27

4.3. Fields of Research within CSR Communication

Considering how much CSR affects public and corporate debate, empirical research of its communication is surprisingly scarce (Podnar, 2008; Reisch, 2006). However, in the last couple of years, increasing attention has been paid to CSR communication, which is also reflected in the increasing number of articles concerned with the topic (Ihlen et al., 2011). Studies of CSR communication can thus be found within a number of subcategories of the communication disciplines: public relations, corporate communication, organizational communication, marketing communication, communication management, and reputation management (Ihlen et al., 2011c).

4.3.1. Consumer-oriented CSR communication

The sparse research conducted into CSR communication aimed at consumers is mostly concerned with its effect on buying behavior. This approach is very clearly anchored in the business case tradition where there is no general agreement on whether CSR positively influences buying behavior or not. In their study of the paradox that consumers increasingly demand more CSR communication but do not pay attention to CSR in the purchase situation, Öberseder, Schlegelmilch

& Gruber (2011, p. 457) conclude that “consumers report positive attitudes towards buying products from socially, responsible companies, but these positive attitudes are not transferred into actual purchase behavior”. Other scholars have identified more positive effects of CSR in relation to purchase intention (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004; Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2007; Du, et al., 2010;

Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). For example, Sen & Bhattacharya (2001) did an empirical study showing that CSR has a positive impact on purchase intention and consumers’ company evaluations. They have, however, also addressed the issue that the company-CSR-consumer relationship in this context is complicated. Thus, they point out that “consumer reactions to CSR are not as straightforward and evident as the marketplace polls suggest; there are numerous factors that affect whether a firm’s CSR activities translate into consumer purchases” (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004, p. 10), and that communication plays a vital role in that connection (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004).

Another strand of research focuses on consumer interest in, responses to, and attitudes towards CSR, but again a marketing communication focus is dominant (e.g. Beckmann, 2006, 2007;

Bhattacharya, Korschun, & Sen, 2008; Boulstridge & Carrigan, 2000; Carrigan & Attalla, 2001;

Jahdi & Acikdilli, 2009; Podnar & Golob, 2007). In addressing the attitude-behavior gap, Boulstridge & Carrigan (2000) argue that there may be groups of consumers for whom company behavior is interesting and important, but that these consumers represent a minority. In line with this, Carrigan & Attalla (2001) in their study of the ethical consumer conclude that “at present good corporate ethics will not be particularly influential in consumer purchases” (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001, p. 574). Finally, discussions and investigations of how consumers can gain personal benefits from corporate responsibility activities, resulting in stronger consumer-company relationships, have also been carried out (Bhattacharya, et al., 2008; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). For example, Bhattacharya, Korshun & Sen (2008) suggest that CSR provides consumers with both functional and psycho-social benefits as well as values positively influencing the strength of the relationship.

Referencer

RELATEREDE DOKUMENTER

Fundraising is an important skill that not only provides students with opportunities for creativity, but also helps them develop the communication skills they will need in

This yields a simple proof that symmetric functions have logarithmic circuit depth.. They want to find an element that is in one set but not in the other, using as little

The infinite traces in themselves do not constitute a Scott domain for lack of finite elements, but as a topological space they arise as what can be seen as a generalization of

With a review of literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its micro-level impacts, this article proposes an integrative framework to map

CSR reporting is regulated and guided by a complex combination of mandatory requirements and many voluntary standards as well as a global political agenda for a sustainable

This study has investigated the manifestation of corporate social responsibility in Somalia, by examining perceptions, practices of CSR, as well as motivations(drivers) for

Det ligger for langt væk fra vores forretning, men hvis der kom nogen og spurgte om vi ville være med til at lave IT i en flygtningelejr, så kunne det være noget, hvor man kan

I forlængelse af Aaker, består det teoretiske grundlag af tre hovedtemaer (forbrugeradfærd, CSR og sociale medier) som danner ramme om forståelsen af problemfeltet. Empirien